My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Focus Group
>
Comprehensive Plan
>
Comprehensive Plan (old)
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
Community/Regional Input
>
Focus Group
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/19/2006 9:39:02 AM
Creation date
9/19/2006 9:38:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Miscellaneous
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />Report on Comprehensive Plan Focus Group Recommendations <br />December ~9. 1997 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />Issue 5 . Individual Prooertv Riahts - While everyone ~greed that both residents and landowners <br />have rights. there was no resolution of this issue. <br /> <br />Issue 6 - Parks, RecreatIon. Trails. and ODen Soaoo - This does not represent an issue, <br />however, the Focus Group recommends as follows: <br /> <br />· More emphasis should be placed on open space in rural areas. <br />· More emphasis should be placed on urban active parks in urban areas. <br />· All parks should not be required to serve all purposes (active athletic uses should be <br />clustered into larger parks). <br />· The option to expand Central Park should be protected. as should the expansion <br />capabilities of all of the City's parks. <br />· Parks should both be able to grow and change to accommodate changing demographics <br />and numbers of residents. <br />· Design and location of trails should be based on their use. <br />.. Should look at opportunities to preserve open space and the urban forest. <br /> <br />Issue 7 - Protect the Rural Lifestvle - It was agreed that the issue of ruraVurban compatibility has <br />already been addressed with the resolution of the above issues. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />The issues resolution process has been extremely difficult for all parties for a number of reasons. <br />There Is great distrust of government, especially the Metropolitan Council. Some members of the <br />Focus Group want to defy regional growth management policies. The Metropolitan Council imposed <br />a minimum rural residential denSity limit of one unit per 1o-acres, thus forcing urban densities into <br />areas that may be better developed at rural densities or something more closely approximating the <br />surrounding existing development. <br /> <br />Some members of the Focus Group feel the City cannot be trusted to make decisions regarding <br />urban growth based on past performance. thus necessitating a referendum. Many others feel the <br />City has done a fine job. The community survey would tend to support the latter. <br /> <br />What does all of this mean as we progress with the comprehensive planning process? As part of the <br />alternatives development stage, we should look at one concept which brings the Comprehensive <br />Plan literally into compliance with the charter as it is currently written. With this alternative we should <br />be able to determine the degree to which a charter based comprehensive plan departs from regional <br />growth management policy. On the other hand. we should look at a concept which blends regional <br />growth management policy and the City's own community vision. This latter concept will likely be <br />more in keeping with what we were told by the community visioning session participants. <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />z~:gt L6. 6Z J3a <br /> <br />t70d Lt70 <br /> <br />~31930~ NOi9NISIOH <br /> <br />8~898~~-Ztg <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.